Re: Keepsake 3D
From: art fougner, md (evsono@pipeline.com)
Wed May 26 15:16:34 2004
There's no law or guideline that prevents you from making the diagnostic
fetal survey more memorable for the patient and family. Joe hit on the
real problem - the money's better in the entertainment biz.
art
At Wed, 26 May 2004, DuBose, Terry wrote:
>
>That is a real possibility, and I would not blame them either. It would
>be worth it just to get away from Call, much less controlling your own
>schedule. As an educator, it is less of a concern for me... again my
>bias... more students for me.
>
>On the other hand, if we restrict real sonographers from entering this
>kind of entertainment business on an ethical basis, are we not
>abandoning the field to the "uneducated, unskilled, and unwashed"?
>Given enough time they will develop the psychomotor skills to acquire
>"pretty pictures" of the face and/or genitals, but will not know a
>uterine synechia from an amniotic band, and won't care because it is not
>"medical"; and the public will believe they have had a sonogram. This
>is the greatest danger in my view... these entrepreneurs are not
>necessarily going to be very vocal about what they are or aren't telling
>their unsuspecting customers.
>
>Terry J. DuBose, M.S., RDMS, FSDMS, FAIUM
>
>Assistant Professor & Director
>Diagnostic Medical Sonography Program
>University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, CHRP
>4301 West Markham St. Mail Slot #563
>Little Rock, Arkansas, 72205 USA
>501-686-6510
>DuBoseTerryJ@UAMS.edu
>http://www.io.com/~dubose/
>http://www.uams.edu/chrp/dms/default.asp
>http://www.obgyn.net/us/panel/panel.htm
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>-----Original Message-----
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>From: ultrasound@obgyn.net [mailto:ultrasound@obgyn.net] On Behalf Of
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>Allen Worrall
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 2:33 PM
>To: Multiple recipients of list ULTRASOUND
>Subject: Re: Keepsake 3D
>
>One of the potential major problems with certification and control (thus
>making this a legal enterprise) would be the loss of trained and skilled
>sonographers to the medical imaging community. It is likely, if this
>type of practice were more or less given approval, that many excellent
>sonographers would opt for the regular hours, lack of night call, and
>probable higher pay. I would not blame them.
>
>Allen
>
>Joseph A Worrall MD RDMS
>The Fairbanks Clinic
>1919 Lathrop Street, Suite 100
>Fairbanks, AK 99701
>jworrall@alaska.net
>http://www.obgynsono.com
>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
> From: DuBose, Terry <mailto:DuboseTerryJ@uams.edu>
> To: Multiple recipients of list ULTRASOUND
><mailto:ultrasound@dns.obgyn.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 11:00 AM
> Subject: RE: Keepsake 3D
>
> >From what I hear at SDMS & AIUM, I think most of the objections
>are to
> those doing "entertainment" scans that are "uneducated,
>unskilled, and
> unwashed". Many of the ultrasound studios located in the
>malls are
> run by folks who do not have a clue what they are looking at,
>and don't
> care because it isn't medical.
>
> >From the professional organizational point of view there seems
>to me to
> be a split between those who are for a purely "free-market" and
>those
> who believe that there should be some kind of control or
>certifications
> for those using sonography.
>
> The SDMS, AIUM, and SVU (I believe) have come out officially
>opposed to
> non-medical uses, and in most cases I think they are also
>against the
> self-referral "screening exam" traveling shows that move around
>the
> country. Their opposition, in addition to the [weak] Bioeffects
> argument, is due to the public believing that a sonogram is a
>sonogram
> regardless of who performs it. If the unsuspecting public goes
>for a
> baby picture session, is not told there are or are not any
>problems,
> will they then believe that all is OK and not get proper
>prenatal care
> as a result?
>
> >From my point of view, I find the non-medical sonographic
>profiteering a
> bit unsavory (of course I am biased, I admit). Particularly
>since one
> such entrepreneur was quoted in the Wall Street Journal saying,
>upon
> being asked about non-medical uses and the event of finding an
> anomaly,... "I don't care if the kid has three legs; I'll only
>point out
> two, this is not a diagnostic exam." However, I am not
>willing to
> censure experienced, ARDMS certified sonographers for going into
>the
> business as long as the FDA does not enforce their own rules and
> continues to allow anyone, regardless of education, experience
>or skill,
> to do the business.
>
> Terry J. DuBose, M.S., RDMS, FSDMS, FAIUM
>
> Assistant Professor & Director
> Diagnostic Medical Sonography Program
> University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, CHRP
> 4301 West Markham St. Mail Slot #563
> Little Rock, Arkansas, 72205 USA
> 501-686-6510
> DuBoseTerryJ@UAMS.edu
> http://www.io.com/~dubose/
> http://www.uams.edu/chrp/dms/default.asp
> http://www.obgyn.net/us/panel/panel.htm
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> -----Original Message-----
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> From: ultrasound@obgyn.net [mailto:ultrasound@obgyn.net] On
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>Behalf Of
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> DoctorJoe@aol.com
> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 7:07 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ULTRASOUND
> Subject: Re: Keepsake 3D
>
> In a message dated 5/24/04 14:55:45, djberck@yahoo.com writes:
>
> If such a scan makes the parents subjectively happier
> about the pregnancy, more bonded etc., isn't that a
> sufficiently good reason? Isn't that a better reason
> than a lot of nonsense reasons we use every day for
> doing ultrasound like, "doptone not in the room but
> scanner is", "it's easier to find the FH this way"
> etc.? And remember, the average german woman gets like
> 8 or 9 scans per pregnancy. They don't seem worse off,
> and their medical system isn't so market driven. . .
>
> I would think a "bonding scan" would be more beneficial in the
>long run
> than the usual (often) "Medicaid scans" which are done for "high
>risk"
> criteria, but coincidentally just as many as Medicaid will
>allow, no
> more, no less.
>
> I think the old lawyer's adage, "follow the money," will answer
>the
> question for you. If it's really not "dangerous," and I think we
>all
> have to agree it's really not, comparatively speaking, then who
>is
> objecting, and WHY?
>
> Joe P.
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------------
> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
> ------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------
>attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
> ------------------------------------
>
>--
> ------------------------------------
>contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
> ------------------------------------
>review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not
> ------------------------------------
>the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
>destroy all copies of the original message.
>
--
art fougner, md
ich bin ein New Yorker
